[No coincidences]

After bashing this guy for years, I figured he was deserving of another chance given the talent he'd assembled in West Lafayette. Saw the Boilermakers play a few times early, and figured there was no way he could eff up a roster with this much talent.

I was wrong. He had no idea how to adjust to a simple 1-2-2 Iowa slapped on Purdue when they were up 17 at half AT HOME as a Top-10 national defensive team. The Boilermakers somehow not only lost that game, but didn't even come close.

Today might have been worse. Giving up 84 points to Illinois, which is a dead team walking at 8-8 coming off a 25-point loss to Michigan State.

No excuse for this team to be 2-2 in the Big Ten with a home choke job vs. Iowa and a blowout loss at Illinois.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[THam12]

Nunn and hill one of best duos in college bball.

[No coincidences]

Nunn and hill one of best duos in college bball.

So speaking of shitty coaches....

How much longer does Groce have a job? No reason for that team to be .500.

[THam12]

So speaking of shitty coaches....

How much longer does Groce have a job? No reason for that team to be .500.

Worst luck ever....

Hasn't had his starting PG last two years.

Also lost ever forward that supposed to contribute big minutes.
Darius paul- dismissed for being a moron
Leron black- injured
Mike thorne- injured

Just tough to overcome 4 HUGE contributors not bring available.

Next year is it for him. He's bringing in his PG, getting everyone back. It's it.... Gotta make tourney or he gone.

[t-wizzle]

Just a few weeks ago you called Purdue the best team in the country.

[No coincidences]

Just a few weeks ago you called Purdue the best team in the country.

They have the talent to be right there with anyone. Two 7-footers and a 5* freshman post in the frontcourt alone.

Leave it to Painter to fukk it all up and make them average.

[t-wizzle]

They have the talent to be right there with anyone. Two 7-footers and a 5* freshman post in the frontcourt alone.

Leave it to Painter to fukk it all up and make them average.

I don't agree with that. Two 7 footers is a unique advantage but they are susceptible against good ball movement and running teams. They also don't shoot it that great. They're a top 20 team but to group them in with teams like UNC, Sparty, Kansas, etc is laughable.

[unde0087]

Ya, the worst thing was this team is supposed to be good defensively yet gets rocked by Illini. But I guess a teams true colors come out in conference play when all the cupcakes have come and gone.

[No coincidences]

I don't agree with that. Two 7 footers is a unique advantage but they are susceptible against good ball movement and running teams. They also don't shoot it that great. They're a top 20 team but to group them in with teams like UNC, Sparty, Kansas, etc is laughable.

126th in the nation in three-point % and 46th in three-pointers made. Not bad. Their defensive efficiency before their recent debacles was Top-5 nationally.

[No coincidences]

Ya, the worst thing was this team is supposed to be good defensively yet gets rocked by Illini. But I guess a teams true colors come out in conference play when all the cupcakes have come and gone.

They waxed Florida and Pitt by double digits, smoked Vandy (who has looked really good at times), drubbed New Mexico ... there's a reason they were in the Top 5-10 early on.

[Qasdf]

T-Wizzle, its hard to exactly see your point b/c your brain is Fizzled,
cookin' on a summer city sidewalk, damn this boy been Sizzled.
just be a bit nice, they say ur a cold-blooded Lizard
U can't make no bacon bits, while these boys Sippin' on the Sizzur

[unde0087]

They waxed Florida and Pitt by double digits, smoked Vandy (who has looked really good at times), drubbed New Mexico ... there's a reason they were in the Top 5-10 early on.

All I am saying is a teams real ability is going to come out in conference play. Every team knows the other team and how they want to play, and from then on its can your team impose it's will on the other team. Purdue did look pretty good early, which team didnt? 90% of games are played against shit competition. If you look at their schedule early about the only impressive win is Pitt, even though you could look at Pitts schedule and have a hard time finding a signature win as they haven't played much of a schedule. Neither Pitt or Purdue has a win against a top 25 team let alone faced a top 10 team. I am not saying Purdue isn't a god team merely saying that even though they were getting alot of praise early they didn't play top teams to gage where they really where like other top 10 teams like Mich st, kansas, OU, UNC, Maryland, Kentucky for instance who have battled against each other. Purdue like many others now get to prove their ranking as they will now face stronger teams all around but also get to prove they can play with the top teams in their conference which happen to be some of the best in the country. That's when you know if the ranking is justified or not.

[No coincidences]

All I am saying is a teams real ability is going to come out in conference play. Every team knows the other team and how they want to play, and from then on its can your team impose it's will on the other team. Purdue did look pretty good early, which team didnt? 90% of games are played against shit competition. If you look at their schedule early about the only impressive win is Pitt, even though you could look at Pitts schedule and have a hard time finding a signature win as they haven't played much of a schedule. Neither Pitt or Purdue has a win against a top 25 team let alone faced a top 10 team. I am not saying Purdue isn't a god team merely saying that even though they were getting alot of praise early they didn't play top teams to gage where they really where like other top 10 teams like Mich st, kansas, OU, UNC, Maryland, Kentucky for instance who have battled against each other. Purdue like many others now get to prove their ranking as they will now face stronger teams all around but also get to prove they can play with the top teams in their conference which happen to be some of the best in the country. That's when you know if the ranking is justified or not.

When teams know each other well, it usually comes down to coaching more than players.

That's why Purdue is starting to regress to the mean; because he is a lower-tier in-game coach compared to a conference full of better ones.

[t-wizzle]

No coin they were preseason #23. You and I know they are both much closer to the 23rd best team than a top 3 team. You overreacted to the hot start.

Let's just be real here, this is a good team with some flaws but a very unique front court advantage.

[unde0087]

When teams know each other well, it usually comes down to coaching more than players.

That's why Purdue is starting to regress to the mean; because he is a lower-tier in-game coach compared to a conference full of better ones.

Well I haven't seen Purdue play yet so I can't comment on coaching but I can say that losing by double digits to a Illini team while giving up 80+ isn't merely a coaching problem. At some point athletes have to make plays and it is pretty apparent that the Purdue players weren't giving much on the defensive part of the court.

[t-wizzle]

Well I haven't seen Purdue play yet so I can't comment on coaching but I can say that losing by double digits to a Illini team while giving up 80+ isn't merely a coaching problem. At some point athletes have to make plays and it is pretty apparent that the Purdue players weren't giving much on the defensive part of the court.

Bingo. It's easy/lazy to just blame the coach which is what no coin so often resorts to.

[oChRoNiCo]

Ya, the worst thing was this team is supposed to be good defensively yet gets rocked by Illini. But I guess a teams true colors come out in conference play when all the cupcakes have come and gone.

It is just as possible that this was one of the stinker games they play this year! I heard it best laid out this way before for college basketball you play on average 32 games. 6 you play above your true level of skill, 6 you play below your true level of skill, and the other 20 those are the 20 games where you truly define yourself as a team!

[unde0087]

It is just as possible that this was one of the stinker games they play this year! I heard it best laid out this way before for college basketball you play on average 32 games. 6 you play above your true level of skill, 6 you play below your true level of skill, and the other 20 those are the 20 games where you truly define yourself as a team!

Makes sense

[No coincidences]

Bingo. It's easy/lazy to just blame the coach which is what no coin so often resorts to.

Who makes millions of dollars and gets fired if results aren't up to par?

Who goes into the Hall of Fame for their consistent track record through the years despite having different players and lineups nearly every season?

If you want to make the argument that coaches don't -- or shouldn't -- matter more often than not in the NBA, fine. It's a players' league. Still matters more than you care to admit, but I can at least accept the idea that it's not all on the coach's shoulders (see McHale and the Houston trainwreck).

With that being said, college coaching and recruiting is THE factor that drives teams into the Top-25 or dumps them in the toilet. And even if you want to say X's and O's don't matter as much, it's still about motivation and setting a tone on the bench and in practice for consistency, even when shots aren't falling.

Coaches who can recruit and gain a psychological advantage and build relationships with players and design great offensive and defensive schemes withstand the test of time. That's why Krzyzewski if Krzyzewski, Izzo is Izzo, Pitino is Pitino, Calipari is Calipari, and Painter is, well Painter.

[t-wizzle]

Coach K - Duke
Izzo - Michigan State
Pitino - Kentucky and Louisville
Calipari - Kentucky

Painter - Purdue


hmmm....

[No coincidences]

Coach K - Duke
Izzo - Michigan State
Pitino - Kentucky and Louisville
Calipari - Kentucky

Painter - Purdue


hmmm....

Meaning what? Magic Johnson's championship run aside, Michigan State was never a national power before Izzo. Duke was nothing before Coach K. Purdue has plenty of rich basketball tradition, most recently under the direction of Gene Keady, a Hall of Fame coach who won almost 500 games and went to the NCAA Tournament nearly 20 times. Purdue isn't a basketball blueblood, but Painter wasn't exactly looking at a rebuilding project or image problem when he took over.

[t-wizzle]

Meaning what? Magic Johnson's championship run aside, Michigan State was never a national power before Izzo. Duke was nothing before Coach K. Purdue has plenty of rich basketball tradition, most recently under the direction of Gene Keady, a Hall of Fame coach who won almost 500 games and went to the NCAA Tournament nearly 20 times. Purdue isn't a basketball blueblood, but Painter wasn't exactly looking at a rebuilding project or image problem when he took over.

And under his guidance, they've experienced good success. Basically right in line with their history. Let's not forget the 2010 team that lost Hummel. They advanced to the Sweet 16 but that team had Final Four hopes at full health.

[No coincidences]

And under his guidance, they've experienced good success. Basically right in line with their history. Let's not forget the 2010 team that lost Hummel. They advanced to the Sweet 16 but that team had Final Four hopes at full health.

They won .602 of their conference games under Keady, including 7 Big Ten championships and just 2 losing seasons in 25 years.
They've won .574 of their conference games under Painter, including 1 Big Ten championship and 3 losing seasons in 10 years.

[t-wizzle]

They won .602 of their conference games under Keady, including 7 Big Ten championships and just 2 losing seasons in 25 years.
They've won .574 of their conference games under Painter, including 1 Big Ten championship and 3 losing seasons in 10 years.

You like to manipulate numbers to support your arguments. You always have.

A 2.5% difference is not that big, but what about overall winning percentages?

What about tournament success?

What in particular about Painter's in-game coaching do you not like? You can't just say "he doesn't make adjustments." That's far too vague and can be debated to no end. You need to provide specific examples.

[No coincidences]

You like to manipulate numbers to support your arguments. You always have.

A 2.5% difference is not that big, but what about overall winning percentages?

What about tournament success?

I'm not "manipulating" anything. What matters more than the numbers I cited?

Keady went to the NCAA Tournament 18 times in 26 seasons. Painter's gone 7 in 11. That's a wash. Overall record is a wash. Keady went to the Sweet 16 seven times. Painter's gone twice. I pointed out the most important results: conference record and championships and number of sub-par seasons.

If you watched the Purdue-Iowa game, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Purdue is up 17 at half on Iowa. At home. According to the statistics, they're a Top-5 team in the nation in defensive efficiency at that point. Iowa starts the second half running a simple 1-2-2 trap. Painter spends the next 15 minutes of court time doing absolutely nothing to adjust, players are turning the ball over left and right, their defense caves because they're not handling the pressure, and they somehow lose by 9. Do you know how impossible it is to have that kind of swing in a game if you are a supposed Top 10-20 team, at home, that prides itself on defense?

Honest question: have you ever played basketball? And I'm not talking just in elementary school or junior high. You seem to severely downplay the coaching aspect of the game, like it doesn't matter and it's up to the players to right their wrongs. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who has been involved in this sport at a remotely competitive level would say some of the things you say.

[t-wizzle]

I've played basketball my whole life. You clearly did not because you chalk everything up to X's and O's. I'm a believer in players over plays.

Just read your post over again. It's loaded with presumptions. Your judgment is clouded by your gambling perspective.

[No coincidences]

I've played basketball my whole life. You clearly did not because you chalk everything up to X's and O's. I'm a believer in players over plays.

Played through high school and halfway into my freshman year in college (small), when I tore up my knee. Still play pick up ball twice a week.

Players -- especially at the college level -- don't have the wherewithal to make adjustments and changes throughout the course of a game or a season that will benefit them. That's why coaches are paid millions of dollars: to do what Painter isn't doing. Figuring out how to get better throughout the course of a season by teaching both on and off the court. When is the last time Purdue got better as the season progressed?

Just read your post over again. It's loaded with presumptions. Your judgment is clouded by your gambling perspective.

Gambling perspective on what? I didn't bet Purdue/Iowa. I haven't bet a Purdue game all year. I have watched parts of at least 10 of their games this season, though. Nothing has changed.

[t-wizzle]

You always act like things are supposed to happen a certain way and it's invariably based on point spreads. Iowa is a good team. Purdue went on a run in the first half but Iowa flat outplayed them. I don't know why that can't ever just be okay with you. There doesn't always need to be some underlying reason.

[No coincidences]

You always act like things are supposed to happen a certain way and it's invariably based on point spreads. Iowa is a good team. Purdue went on a run in the first half but Iowa flat outplayed them. I don't know why that can't ever just be okay with you. There doesn't always need to be some underlying reason.

First of all, did you watch that game or no? What do you mean by "Purdue went on a run in the first half but Iowa flat outplayed them"? Purdue completely dominated all but about 3 minutes of the first half.

Iowa is a good team, without question. Again, though, Purdue was up 17 POINTS at halftime. At home. As a Top-5 team in the country defensively.

The "underlying reason" Purdue collapsed was because Painter burned through all of his timeouts in the first 10 minutes of the second half (he does that regularly) and had literally no idea how to adjust to the 1-2-2. It's not up to the players to figure out how to adjust mid-game, especially at the collegiate level.

[t-wizzle]

First of all, did you watch that game or no? What do you mean by "Purdue went on a run in the first half but Iowa flat outplayed them"? Purdue completely dominated all but about 3 minutes of the first half.

Iowa is a good team, without question. Again, though, Purdue was up 17 POINTS at halftime. At home. As a Top-5 team in the country defensively.

The "underlying reason" Purdue collapsed was because Painter burned through all of his timeouts in the first 10 minutes of the second half (he does that regularly) and had literally no idea how to adjust to the 1-2-2. It's not up to the players to figure out how to adjust mid-game, especially at the collegiate level.

Yea I watched it. Iowa was playing well early. As I recall they were leading early and then the last 5-10 minutes, Iowa went cold and Purdue was able to stretch out a lead. It's a game of runs like I always try to tell you.

If you honestly believe Purdue to be as good as any team in the country then that's your prerogative. I don't feel the same way about them.

[No coincidences]

Yea I watched it. Iowa was playing well early. As I recall they were leading early and then the last 5-10 minutes, Iowa went cold and Purdue was able to stretch out a lead. It's a game of runs like I always try to tell you.

If you honestly believe Purdue to be as good as any team in the country then that's your prerogative. I don't feel the same way about them.

Purdue should be as good as almost anyone, outside of maybe 5 teams. They beat the shit out of Pitt, Florida, New Mexico, Vandy, etc. Their schedule is in the Top-40, and they're 4-2 against Top-50 teams.

But of course they aren't, and they're headed in the wrong direction (like usual).

[t-wizzle]

Purdue should be as good as almost anyone, outside of maybe 5 teams. They beat the shit out of Pitt, Florida, New Mexico, Vandy, etc. Their schedule is in the Top-40, and they're 4-2 against Top-50 teams.

But of course they aren't, and they're headed in the wrong direction (like usual).

You are grossly overrating them. Pitt is solid. Florida is borderline tourney. New Mexico stinks and Vandy is decent.

Theyre 14-3. It's way too early to go making the kinds of leaps you're making. Let's let it play out. I say they finish right around top 20. They should be in the top 4 in the Big Ten but they're not in MSU or Maryland's class.

[t-wizzle]

I guess Tom Izzo doesn't know what he's doing either. Down 20 at home to Iowa.

[t-wizzle]

Michigan State loses again. At home. To Nebraska.

[No coincidences]

Michigan State loses again. At home. To Nebraska.

Tom Izzo has the tournament track record. He has earned the benefit of the doubt. You know that....

....or maybe you don't. Trying to figure out if you're trolling, or just that dumb.